Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I don't know much about horses*, but when they are being worked hard don't they need supplemental feed like grain or alfalfa pellets? Like grass is fine if they are just being ridden for a bit each day, but not sufficient if they spend a lot of the day pulling an artillery piece? I'm not sure where I got that idea, maybe it's bunk.

*Despite being raised by ranchers who used to ride horses for a living I picked up very little knowledge of them. Not much call for them where I live.

It's better to give them more than just grass (from what I've read), but not sure to what degree.

w1zard wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
To add on to the previous posts, I just found out that during WW2, the germans used 2.8 million horses to transport stuff because their oil resources were so scarce. Russia used 3.5 million.

And? If they could have used vehicles in place of the horses they would have. It was an act of desperation, not an act of choice.

War itself is an act of desperation. There is never going to be a war where the circumstances are ideal. If war was only about choice, then no one could ever lose.

Dandelion wrote:

w1zard wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
To add on to the previous posts, I just found out that during WW2, the germans used 2.8 million horses to transport stuff because their oil resources were so scarce. Russia used 3.5 million.

And? If they could have used vehicles in place of the horses they would have. It was an act of desperation, not an act of choice.

War itself is an act of desperation. There is never going to be a war where the circumstances are ideal. If war was only about choice, then no one could ever lose.

There was a Military History Visualized video a while back that seemed to indicate that for the Russians trucks were sometimes better and horses were sometimes better. Trucks were generally better on the roads but horses were sometimes preferable as large parts of Russia had bad roads/no roads. (I'm not sure how good of a source Military History Visualized is, but he does have a relevant degree and he cites his sources.)

Of course that has to do with horses vs trucks when it comes to bulk transportation. Horses vs motorcycles when it comes to scouting, raiding and/or charging hover tanks with melta spears is a different story.

 Hawky wrote:
What about stealth? A motorbike makes a lot of noise, a horse, not so much...

As I have said in previous comments, you are used to civilian motorbikes that are designed to be as loud as possible. Military motorcycles are a lot quieter.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Can you eat a motorcycle? How well do they handle broken terrain? Because horses are actually fairly good there compared to bikes. How about stairs? Horses can climb those. They have more room for cargo too. Why do police use horses to patrol urban areas?

Can't eat a motorcycle, but any situation where you are eating your horses you have bigger problems to worry about. Motorcycles handle broken terrain better than horses. Military motorcycles can go up stairs. Motorcycles have just as much room for cargo as horses do. Police use motorcycles to patrol urban areas far more often than they do horses.

Check out this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d1jNHBA5hA

You can turn the sound off, but it is a pretty good example of what a military motorcycle is capable of in terms of handling rough terrain.

 Peregrine wrote:

w1zard wrote:
In any environment where supplies aren't an issue

IOW, nowhere.

You conveniently ignored the rest of the sentence, so I will post it again so you understand: "...the motorbike is purely superior to the horse in every respect. The only time I could see you making an argument for horses over motorbikes is when fuel and spare parts are scarce, AND foodstuffs + clean water are abundant."

Fuel and spare parts being more common than food and clean water happens a LOT. In fact I would say it would be a much more common situation than the other way around in the 41st millennium.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Last bayonet charge was in 2004, and it worked very well. The US army has used Tomahawks (the axe) in iraq and Afghanistan successfully as well. The last lancer cavalry charge was in 2008 (not all riders had lances, and they all had assault rifles). That charge was successful, despite the defenders having trenches and T-55's. While not a common occurrence, they do still succeed under the right conditions.

Sources, please for all of that? Last I checked, the last "successful" cavalry charge was in WW1.

I don't know about Mmpi's sources but here's an interesting article on the subject:
https://militaryhistorynow.com/2017/10/17/the-last-horse-soldiers-what-were-historys-final-cavalry-charges/

Cavalry charges have definitely become less common, but they aren't gone yet.

Though I really don't see what motorcycles do that make them more suitable for actual combat than horses. If we look at the genecult bikers, they're just on dirtbikes with no armor so why is that better than being on a horse?

I don't think Imperial Guard rough riders should be on bikes. We can talk about all the virtues of bikes in modern combat, but despite that it isn't just an aesthetic change to the unit. The rules make a distinction between bikes and cavalry, and I think the bonuses related to their using horses are pretty beneficial.

I think if IG were to get bikes, it should be an all together new unit.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
I don't know much about horses*, but when they are being worked hard don't they need supplemental feed like grain or alfalfa pellets? Like grass is fine if they are just being ridden for a bit each day, but not sufficient if they spend a lot of the day pulling an artillery piece? I'm not sure where I got that idea, maybe it's bunk.

*Despite being raised by ranchers who used to ride horses for a living I picked up very little knowledge of them. Not much call for them where I live.

The same is true of humans as well - a soldier needs far more in general to remain at top performance than, say, an office worker.

Horses are also not just "go fasta" objects. A motorcycle can keep going all day long so long as its got fuel, whilst your standard horse needs rest. Games and films often give the impression that they can run for ages and ages, when in truth they need to pause and break and need time with their rider off their backs on longer marches. You can push them, but they will die if you push them too far (there's a good few tales of messengers and the like driving a horse to death in desperation to deliver a message). One also forgets that when horses were the standard mode of transport there were things like inns and pubs where a change of horses was present for those running teams pulling the carriages.

Now of course your 41st millennium horse is not going to be the same and the augmented and Imperial Seal Approved food provided to guard likely feeds their horse too. So the 40K horse is likely far closer to fiction than a horse of the real world today.

I'm going to drastically oversimply things and say there are generally four arguments being made:

1. Horses are a stupid idea on a futuristic battlefield (even though bayonet charges and swordfights are somehow okay).

2. Horses aren't my cup of tea, so I'd prefer to see other units, but it's fine that others like them since this is a silly space fantasy game.

3. Fighting from horseback doesn't usually make much sense in modern warfare, but I think it's cool and it fits well in the unrealistic setting of 40k where rule of cool trumps most everything.

4. Fighting from horseback is perfectly viable in our modern world, so it makes sense to have it in 40k too.

I suspect the vast majority of people have positions along the lines of 2 and 3, but because communicating is hard on the Internet they might be interpreted as arguing for 1 or 4.

Of course this is all based on a hunch, I have no real evidence.

I like the rough riders from a back to basics standpoint. The scifi trope of a society with so much tech that thier scanners for power signatures or large amounts of metal and/or heat from an angine. It allows the group to sneak in on horseback. Also it seems like the imperium would want any allies on its side they can get. if some feudal world is brought in the imperium and has trained cavalry fighters... well give that man a power lance and tell him to charge. worse case he distracts the opponent long enough to allow others to do something. best case he connects and charges again.

Horses are cool.

A bunch of lunatics charging across a battlefield on drugged up horses in order to stab miserable space elves with exploding sticks is cooler.

40k isn't about carefully thought out units that make sense in a modern context. It's all rule of cool

I'd love a new set of broad-brush approaches to rough riders, allowing different weapon loadouts and different capabilities for their mounts (motorbike, space lions, attack gazelle, horses, doombirds, etc).

w1zard wrote:

 Hawky wrote:
What about stealth? A motorbike makes a lot of noise, a horse, not so much...

As I have said in previous comments, you are used to civilian motorbikes that are designed to be as loud as possible. Military motorcycles are a lot quieter.

Can I ask for a source of your claim? My searches proved otherwise so far...

Hawky has already asked for a source for your motorcycle claim, so I'll wait for that.

But eating your horse is still something that you can't do with a motorcycle. I'll need a source for how your armored motorcycle does off-road. We already know armored horses can navigate rough terrain (steeper slopes, and narrower paths) than a motorcycle.. Dirt bikes can go upstairs. Sometimes. Cruiser bikes have just as much room for cargo as a combat horse. Pack horses carry far more than a motorcycle can however. But police do use horses. More militaries use horses in combat than motorcycles now.

53 seconds: A horse can climb that.
1:30 seconds: a horse can cross that.
You found once motorcycle made for a military that can come close to a horse. Congratulations? How much armor does that bike have? If it's being carried like that I'd suspect that it can't survive being shot 30 times by an assault rifle.

No, I didn't ignore the rest of your sentence. Fuel and parts are almost always rarer than grass and water. Unless your're in the desert, you're going to have both food and water just about everywhere, at least for the horse. The motorbike has advantages, but it's not superior in every respect. Based on the novels and such in the 40K universe, most planets have plenty of food and water for horses. It's rare that they don't take place on an earth like world.

World War II the Italians at the Don River. Afghanistan, there was cavalry action at Mazir-i-Sharif. The Chinese successfully used cavalry in their skermishes with the USSR in the 1970's.

 Hawky wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Hawky wrote:
What about stealth? A motorbike makes a lot of noise, a horse, not so much...

As I have said in previous comments, you are used to civilian motorbikes that are designed to be as loud as possible. Military motorcycles are a lot quieter.

Can I ask for a source of your claim? My searches proved otherwise so far...

Here
https://www.popsci.com/special-forces-stealth-motorcycle-silent-hawk#page-3

So one in development.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
1. Horses are a stupid idea on a futuristic battlefield (even though bayonet charges and swordfights are somehow okay).

Exactly!

Bayonet charges and swordfights don't work very well in modern warfare either. But, there are explanations within the 40k setting as to why they are relevant on the battlefield of the 41st millenium. (Example: Power weapons that are capable of slicing through advanced armor as though it weren't there. Armor that would otherwise render ranged weapons ineffective.)

So equally, if there was some explanation as to why horse mounted cavalry is relevant on the battlefield of the 41st millennium I would still think it somewhat silly, but ultimately have no issue with it. (Example: Power lances plus robotic steeds, or something similar).

ORDINARY horses serving as mounts crosses that critical barrier for me that breaks suspension of disbelief.

Plus there are people in here trying to argue with a straight face that cavalry charges are still a valid tactic in modern warfare .

 Mmmpi wrote:
So one in development.

A nearly silent prototype is in development yes. However, civilian motorcycles are actually designed and built to be louder than they should be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB7ySTE2QtY

Even non "silenced" military motorcycles are much quieter than civilian models.

w1zard wrote:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
1. Horses are a stupid idea on a futuristic battlefield (even though bayonet charges and swordfights are somehow okay).

Exactly!

Bayonet charges and swordfights don't work very well in modern warfare either. But, there are explanations within the 40k setting as to why they are relevant on the battlefield of the 41st millenium. (Example: Power weapons that are capable of slicing through advanced armor as though it weren't there. Armor that would otherwise render ranged weapons ineffective.)

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-famous-bayonet-charge-of-modern-conflict-2012-10

Hmmm...looks like a successful bayonet charge in current modern warfare.

Most 40K melee weapons are steel bayonets, steel knives, or chain swords. Not power weapons. Meanwhile, a las gun has a decent chance of penetrating power armor.

So equally, if there was some explanation as to why horse mounted cavalry is relevant on the battlefield of the 41st millennium I would still think it somewhat silly, but ultimately have no issue with it. (Example: Power lances plus robotic steeds, or something similar).

Which is one possibility that people have suggested.

Ordinary horses serving as mounts crosses that critical barrier for me that breaks suspension of disbelief.

Key part of this phrase is the "for me" part. No one is stopping you from converting your RR's from Jackels, or making cyber horses.

Plus there are people in here trying to argue with a straight face that cavalry charges are still a valid tactic in modern warfare .

No one is saying it isn't a common use, only that there are valid situations for cavalry charges in the modern world, and that horses in general are still useful for a modern military, particularly in the few areas a motorcycle isn't the best option.










Automatically Appended Next Post:

w1zard wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
So one in development.

A nearly silent prototype is in development yes. However, civilian motorcycles are actually designed and built to be louder than they should be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB7ySTE2QtY

Even non "silenced" military motorcycles are much quieter than civilian models.

But those are still louder than a horse.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Hmmm...looks like a successful bayonet charge in current modern warfare.

Looks like someone can't tell the difference between. "Doesn't work very well" and "is impossible and never works".

A bayonet charge on a modern battlefield is the wrong call in 99% of situations.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Most 40K melee weapons are steel bayonets, steel knives, or chain swords. Not power weapons.

Knives with mono-molecular edges, and chainswords with adamantium teeth and engines powerful enough to tear through ceramite. Do you even read any of the IG lore?

 Mmmpi wrote:
Key part of this phrase is the "for me" part. No one is stopping you from converting your RR's from Jackels, or making cyber horses.

The argument that "you can just convert your horse RR from fantasy models" is equally valid.

 Mmmpi wrote:
that horses in general are still useful for a modern military...

No, because anything a horse can do, a powered vehicle can do better. The U.S military doesn't spend its money on buying horses for a reason.

The only time horses are used on the modern battlefield is when vehicles cannot be obtained for some reason. Whether because the fighting force in question is poor, or because there are logistical problems. No modern military, when having the choice between vehicles and horses is going to pick horses... NONE.

 Mmmpi wrote:
But those are still louder than a horse.

Loud enough to outweigh the advantages that a motorcycle has over a horse? No.

Horses can be pretty loud too.

Not sure why cyber horse cavalry is ok but normal horse cavalry is not. The weakness isn't the horse itself, it's the lack of protection for the rider. That's what's bothering me about wizard's stance. Besides, it's not like we can't armor our horses.

Just seeing some peoples' completely bizarre hatred for Rough Riders just solidifies the fact that I will run tons of them if I ever do a guard force.

There's some borderline vitriol in some of these posts which is amusing (and a little sad).

Dandelion wrote:
Not sure why cyber horse cavalry is ok but normal horse cavalry is not. The weakness isn't the horse itself, it's the lack of protection for the rider. That's what's bothering me about wizard's stance. Besides, it's not like we can't armor our horses.

To me, the weakness is the horse itself. A pothole can cripple a horse... a single bullet (even in a non vital area) renders it useless as a mount. It also has the rider much higher up than a motorcycle would.

Don't get me wrong, a motorcycle rider is exposed too, but it is much easier to justify high-tech 40k motorcycle rough riders than old fashioned horse rough riders.

Wizard for the record from a us military member. We dont buy bikes for combat either. And we do have a actual horse unit <ceremonial but eh> wiki horses in warfare on wiki and see China has a whole horse regiment because they can get where bikes can't. I am not saying horses are better then bikes but your resistance to horses is bordering on obsessive. Both bikes and horses can belong.

w1zard wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
Not sure why cyber horse cavalry is ok but normal horse cavalry is not. The weakness isn't the horse itself, it's the lack of protection for the rider. That's what's bothering me about wizard's stance. Besides, it's not like we can't armor our horses.

To me, the weakness is the horse itself. A pothole can cripple a horse... a single bullet (even in a non vital area) renders it useless as a mount. It also has the rider much higher up than a motorcycle would.

Don't get me wrong, a motorcycle rider is exposed too, but it is much easier to justify high-tech 40k motorcycle rough riders than old fashioned horse rough riders.

Have you not seen the dkok horses? they suppose to be able to take massive amount of punishment and still keeps going and going, genetically enhanced. Not arguing for one or the other, but I love the potential modeling opportunity the rough rider gives the creator.

w1zard wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
Hmmm...looks like a successful bayonet charge in current modern warfare.

Looks like someone can't tell the difference between. "Doesn't work very well" and "is impossible and never works".

A bayonet charge on a modern battlefield is the wrong call in 99% of situations.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Most 40K melee weapons are steel bayonets, steel knives, or chain swords. Not power weapons.

Knives with mono-molecular edges, and chainswords with adamantium teeth and engines powerful enough to tear through ceramite. Do you even read any of the IG lore?

 Mmmpi wrote:
Key part of this phrase is the "for me" part. No one is stopping you from converting your RR's from Jackels, or making cyber horses.

The argument that "you can just convert your horse RR from fantasy models" is equally valid.

 Mmmpi wrote:
that horses in general are still useful for a modern military...

No, because anything a horse can do, a powered vehicle can do better. The U.S military doesn't spend its money on buying horses for a reason.

The only time horses are used on the modern battlefield is when vehicles cannot be obtained for some reason. Whether because the fighting force in question is poor, or because there are logistical problems. No modern military, when having the choice between vehicles and horses is going to pick horses... NONE.

 Mmmpi wrote:
But those are still louder than a horse.

Loud enough to outweigh the advantages that a motorcycle has over a horse? No.

Horses can be pretty loud too.

Good thing no one is claiming that it is the right move 100% of the time. Just that it's the right move some of the time.

Yes, I do read through their lore. I also see their AP-0 which is the same as a steel bayonet.

No, because they make bike kits. They don't make a cavalry kit.

Ok, drive that car up a 60 degree slope on a path two feet wide, with it's weight in cargo. The US military doesn't spend it's money on horses, because in the 1930's it switched to all mechanized. The US isn't the only military in the world.

Yes, too loud to outweigh the advantages over a horse. Lots of horses can be loud. A horse is relatively quiet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

w1zard wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
Not sure why cyber horse cavalry is ok but normal horse cavalry is not. The weakness isn't the horse itself, it's the lack of protection for the rider. That's what's bothering me about wizard's stance. Besides, it's not like we can't armor our horses.

To me, the weakness is the horse itself. A pothole can cripple a horse... a single bullet (even in a non vital area) renders it useless as a mount. It also has the rider much higher up than a motorcycle would.

Don't get me wrong, a motorcycle rider is exposed too, but it is much easier to justify high-tech 40k motorcycle rough riders than old fashioned horse rough riders.

A single pothole can cripple a car or a bike too. I should know. I've had it happen more than once.

A single bullet can render a car useless too. You won't drive far without a functioning radiator for example. Or a flat tire. And you can't hang on a motorcycle's side while riding to use it as cover like you can with a horse.

There's just as much justification for a horse, before looking at social/economic reasons, as there is a motorcycle.

w1zard wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
Not sure why cyber horse cavalry is ok but normal horse cavalry is not. The weakness isn't the horse itself, it's the lack of protection for the rider. That's what's bothering me about wizard's stance. Besides, it's not like we can't armor our horses.

To me, the weakness is the horse itself. A pothole can cripple a horse... a single bullet (even in a non vital area) renders it useless as a mount. It also has the rider much higher up than a motorcycle would.

Don't get me wrong, a motorcycle rider is exposed too, but it is much easier to justify high-tech 40k motorcycle rough riders than old fashioned horse rough riders.

Warhorses are/were specifically trained to avoid potholes when riding at full gallop. It's like saying a bike is bad because a single nail can blow the tire.
Warhorses are also trained to give the rider a very smooth ride over rough terrain to allow accurate shooting (used to be with a bow, but a rifle works too)

And horses are tough, much tougher than humans are (seriously, they weigh over half a ton). The kind of bullet that would render a horse useless in one shot would also render a bike useless.

The Guard have access to a lot of ranged weapons that are relatively good at punching through armor. More elite forces like the Space Marines, Scions and Sisters have even more access to such weapons. They still use chainsaw swords because they're cool.

I can appreciate attempts to make things make sense in-universe. It might be futile, but it can be a fun exercise. It just seems weird when someone is willing to do tons of mental backflips to explain most things but doesn't seem to be willing to spend any effort trying to suspend disbelief for others.

I don't mean to sound too critical, I think we all have a few things we have a hard time suspending disbelief for and as a result we don't like. It just seems kind of silly to others who don't have that particular hangup when most everything in the universe don't make much sense and have a shoddy explanation at best.

Many of the people that dislike Rough Riders on horseback lean on the notion of the “modern battlefield” and as a reason why they shouldn’t work... However 40k isn’t a modern battlefield, it’s science fiction and fantasy. In the lore many rough riders are coming from feudal worlds where a horse is the best of their technology.

It goes back to what I was talking about before. The Imperial Guard is a galactic army and Rough Riders on horses are one of only a handful of units that paint that picture of diversity.

 inflatablefriend wrote:
Horses are cool.

A bunch of lunatics charging across a battlefield on drugged up horses in order to stab miserable space elves with exploding sticks is cooler.

40k isn't about carefully thought out units that make sense in a modern context. It's all rule of cool

I'd love a new set of broad-brush approaches to rough riders, allowing different weapon loadouts and different capabilities for their mounts (motorbike, space lions, attack gazelle, horses, doombirds, etc).

Yes, bring on the Stukasaurus!
https://eurekaminusa.com/products/100plp25-stukasaurus-luftwaffe-pilot-37mm-anti-tank-gun

As cool as it looks, I have to agree that massed cavalry charges againts enemies armed with any kind of heavy, fast-firing weapons like autocannons or heavy bolters, are kinda hard to believe... Both horses and riders make easy targets that would be mowed down in seconds.

I think horse-mounted troops would make more sense if they were presented as independent units meant to operate deep behind enemy lines with zero logistical support. A bunch of survivalist soldiers with easy to recharge lasguns could live off the land, along with their horses (or dinos or whatever) for as long as they'd need to and potentially do a lot of damage via guerilla tactics. I don't know how well that kind of unit would fit in your usual 40k battle, though.

Tiennos wrote:
As cool as it looks, I have to agree that massed cavalry charges againts enemies armed with any kind of heavy, fast-firing weapons like autocannons or heavy bolters, are kinda hard to believe... Both horses and riders make easy targets that would be mowed down in seconds.

I think horse-mounted troops would make more sense if they were presented as independent units meant to operate deep behind enemy lines with zero logistical support. A bunch of survivalist soldiers with easy to recharge lasguns could live off the land, along with their horses (or dinos or whatever) for as long as they'd need to and potentially do a lot of damage via guerilla tactics. I don't know how well that kind of unit would fit in your usual 40k battle, though.

To be fair, previous editions had Rough Riders outflanking in support of your main force, so they really did do this. I can't remember what rules they have in the 8th Index.